View clinical trials related to Cancer of Esophagus.
Filter by:International registry for cancer patients evaluating the feasibility and clinical utility of an Artificial Intelligence-based precision oncology clinical trial matching tool, powered by a virtual tumor boards (VTB) program, and its clinical impact on pts with advanced cancer to facilitate clinical trial enrollment (CTE), as well as the financial impact, and potential outcomes of the intervention.
There is no evidence available about which molecular profiling methods are currently used for cancer patients in Austrian clinical practice. The construction of the registry proposed as a completely independent research endeavor, will be helpful for scientific evaluation and the establishment of highly credible data.
The objective or the trial is to study the influence of a combined therapy involving protein-rich individualized nutritional therapy and highly effective muscle training via personalized whole-body electromyostimulation exercise on muscle mass, muscle functionality, physical capability, fatigue and quality of life in patients with esophageal and bronchial carcinoma in advanced or metastatic stage.
Collect blood samples and associated clinical data prior to, during, and post radiation treatment.
The Mayo Clinic Conduit Report Card Questionnaires have been created in order to have a consistent evaluation tools for patients undergoing esophageal reconstruction or treatment or patients that are experiencing an upper digestive disease in order to standardize and validate outcome measures. Data will be used to establish the validation of the questionnaires/survey. Data will also lead to the establishment of "normal" or expected scores for patients undergoing each type of esophagectomy procedure and for upper digestive diseases. Data will contribute to creating treatment algorithms for symptom management for upper digestive diseases and for post-operative complications and symptoms as well as contribute to pre-operative education.
Esophagectomy for esophageal cancer is a technically complex procedure which is associated with high perioperative mortality, even in high volume centers[1]. To facilitate the postoperative recovery of esophagectomies patients by reducing surgical trauma, an increasing number of surgeons have attempted minimally invasive esophagectomy (MIE) to treat patients with esophageal cancer.[2-10] However, there is no consensus regarding the optimal method for performing an esophagectomy with the minimally invasive surgical technique. In addition, the benefit of this approach has not been well confirmed based on the limited retrospective comparative studies at the present time [3, 11-12], although its potential benefit improving the immediate postoperative including the total morbidity and pulmonary complication has been demonstrated by meta-analyses[13]. Especially it is unclear whether adding laparoscopic procedures in MIE can contribute to further improvement of the perioperative outcome of the patients.[3] Previously, the investigators have found that adding of laparoscopic procedure in performing the esophageal reconstruction procedure after VATS esophagectomy can provide further benefit in reducing the postoperative major complications and fasten the postoperative recovery16. For the most cases, the patients was receiving tri-incision esophagectomy, i.e. VATS esophagectomy in the chest, laparoscopic gastric mobilization in the abdomen and left cervical esophagogastrostomy. In such circumstances, a cervical incision was required for esophagogastrostomy after esophagectomy and gastric mobilization. However, for the patients with lower-to mid third esophageal cancer, some surgeon performed Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, which performing the esophagogastrostomy in the chest after gastric mobilization without cervical incision wound. Although both of these procedures have been demonstrated to be feasible and safe, there is much debate about the advantage and disadvantage of these two approaches. For tri-incision esophagectomy, patients have the chance to have cervical lymph node dissection and the esophagus can be resected up to the neck. However, it is more time-consuming and associated with more surgical trauma by adding a cervical incisional wound and more tissue dissection around the cervical trachea as compared to that done by Ivor Lewis esophagectomy. In contrast, for the Ivor Lewis esophagectomy, the resection of esophagus was limited to the level of thoracic inlet and cervical lymph node dissection was impossible unless a neck incision was further created. However, it takes less time in performing the whole procedure by saving a neck incision.
Surgery is the standard treatment for esophageal (food pipe) cancer. Esophageal cancer is known to spread to the lymph nodes (glands) adjacent to the esophagus. The extent of lymph nodes that need to be removed along with removal of the esophagus is a controversial topic. The basic surgery will remain the same i.e., the foodpipe in the chest will be removed and a new substitute will be created from the stomach and joined to the foodpipe in the neck. This will involve incisions in the chest, abdomen and neck. We intend to compare two types of lymphadenectomy (removal of lymph nodes) - the two field lymphadenectomy, whereby the lymph nodes in the abdomen and the lower half of the chest will be removed and three field lymphadenectomy, wherein lymph nodes in the abdomen, the whole chest and the lower neck will be removed. Both these procedures are practised widely worldwide and there is no definite scientific evidence showing the superiority of either of them. We are conducting this study to see whether one of these procedures is superior to the other. Seven hundred patients are expected to participate in this study.